Introduction:
In Dr. Aarti Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP No. 39861 of 2024) [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 311], the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner, Higher Education Department, rejecting the claim of Guest Lecturers seeking seven additional days of casual leave available to regular women government employees. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal held that Guest Lecturers are engaged on a temporary and contingent basis under a separate policy framework and, therefore, cannot claim service benefits specifically granted to regular government employees.
The dispute arose after the General Administration Department (GAD) issued a circular dated 5 July 2023 extending the benefit of seven additional casual leave days to women government employees over and above the existing thirteen days of casual leave. The petitioners, serving as Guest Lecturers in government colleges, claimed that they were also entitled to the same benefit. After their representation remained undecided, they approached the High Court, which directed the Commissioner of the Higher Education Department to consider and decide their representation.
Subsequently, the Commissioner rejected the claim through a reasoned order dated 22 October 2024, observing that Guest Lecturers were governed by a separate circular dated 5 October 2023, under which they were entitled only to thirteen days of casual leave and three optional holidays. Challenging this order, the petitioners again approached the High Court, contending that denial of the additional leave violated their constitutional right to equality.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners argued that the benefit of seven additional casual leave granted by the General Administration Department should also be extended to Guest Lecturers, particularly to women employees. They contended that the authorities had acted contrary to the Government Circular dated 5 July 2023 and had wrongly excluded Guest Lecturers from its scope.
The petitioners further submitted that despite the earlier direction of the High Court to decide their representation, the authorities delayed the matter, compelling them to initiate contempt proceedings. Although the Commissioner eventually passed a speaking order rejecting the representation, it was argued that the decision was legally unsustainable because it relied upon a subsequent circular dated 5 October 2023 that allegedly discriminated against Guest Lecturers. According to the petitioners, such differential treatment between Guest Lecturers and regular employees violated Article 14 of the Constitution by denying equal treatment to persons performing similar academic functions.
The State opposed the petition and contended that the Commissioner’s order was fully consistent with the applicable policy governing Guest Lecturers. It was argued that Guest Lecturers are not regular government servants but are engaged purely on a temporary and contingent basis under distinct terms and conditions. Consequently, they cannot claim parity with regular employees in matters relating to service benefits.
The State further submitted that the Commissioner had carefully examined the petitioners’ representation and passed a reasoned order explaining why the benefit of seven additional casual leave was unavailable to Guest Lecturers. Since the applicable policy already granted Guest Lecturers thirteen days of casual leave along with three optional holidays, there was no legal basis for extending benefits specifically reserved for regular government employees.
Court’s Judgment:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Commissioner’s order. The Division Bench held that the petitioners had failed to establish any enforceable legal or statutory right entitling them to claim the additional seven days of casual leave.
The Court observed that Guest Lecturers are engaged under a separate policy applicable exclusively to guest faculty and not under the service rules governing regular government employees. Their engagement is temporary and contingent in nature, making them subject to a distinct framework regarding service conditions and benefits. Therefore, benefits specifically conferred upon regular employees cannot automatically be claimed by Guest Lecturers merely on the ground of parity.
The Bench noted that the Commissioner had considered the petitioners’ representation in detail and had correctly concluded that the circular dated 5 October 2023 governed the service conditions of Guest Lecturers. Under that policy, they were already entitled to thirteen days of casual leave and three optional holidays. Since no provision extended the benefit of the additional seven days of casual leave to Guest Lecturers, the rejection of the representation was legally justified.
Rejecting the challenge based on Article 14, the Court held that equality cannot be claimed between two distinct classes of employees governed by different service conditions. Regular government employees and Guest Lecturers do not constitute a homogeneous class because their appointments, tenure, service conditions and governing policies are fundamentally different. Consequently, differential treatment regarding leave benefits did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.
The Court placed significant reliance on the settled principle governing the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao (2002) 4 SCC 638 and State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321, the Bench reiterated that a writ of mandamus can only be issued to enforce an existing legal or statutory right. Constitutional courts cannot create a new legal entitlement through judicial directions where none exists under the applicable law or policy.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the petitioners had failed to identify any statutory provision, service rule or government policy granting Guest Lecturers the benefit of seven additional casual leave. In the absence of such a legal right, the Court could not direct the State to extend benefits that the governing policy itself did not contemplate.
The Bench further observed that judicial review under Article 226 is concerned with examining the legality of administrative action and not with framing service policies or extending benefits beyond those prescribed by the competent authority. Matters relating to service conditions of temporary employees remain within the policy domain of the Government unless they violate constitutional or statutory provisions. No such violation was established in the present case.
Finding the Commissioner’s order to be reasoned, lawful and consistent with the applicable policy, the High Court concluded that there was no ground for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
The judgment reinforces the distinction between regular government employees and temporary contractual or guest faculty members in matters relating to service benefits. It also reiterates the settled constitutional principle that courts exercising writ jurisdiction cannot create new legal rights through a writ of mandamus and may only enforce rights that already exist under law. The decision serves as an important precedent on the limits of judicial review in service matters and the scope of equality claims based on parity between different categories of employees.